In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit

[Srecko Sostar]

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,+ baptizing them+ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, - Mat 28:19 nwt

WT Society have changed few times, in last 140 years, baptismal questions.

Also they stopped to respect, obey Jesus command quoted above. At some moment (perhaps about 1970's , please correct this guessing if it is wrong) JW person who immersing new member into water doing that silently. They do not repeat this Jesus words while baptizing "disciples". 

What do you think about this?  Whether the absence of spoken words (in the name of ....) is the reason why such baptism would be considered invalid? Or, that is not matter?  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I believe the last major change was in 1985.

Any Baptisms before that you did not swear legal fealty to the Organization.

After 1985, having subordinated yourself to the Corporation, you had no legal standing to sue them in Court if they screwed up your life.

I do not think this matters to Jehovah, because this is NEVER mentioned before you stand up and say "YES" moments before you are baptized, and the language is couched in such language as to be deliberately misleading in intent, if not actually stated.

They take advantage of the passion and happiness of the moment to "microchip" you for future control, but Jehovah knows a person's heart, and He also understands trickery, and hypnosis.

Currently, there is NO ONE on Earth who can fire the Governing Body .... and they know it!

No matter what they do .... the money just keeps rolling in.

day, after day, after day.

... even on the Weekends.

 

 

 

 

[Space Merchant]

Didn't the first century Christians baptized people in Jesus' name due to the fact that Christians were to take up the teachings of the Christ concerning God? I agree with the church as is with our church fathers of old concerning what Matthew 28:19.

[Srecko Sostar]

I found this yesterday.

Baptismal questions from ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMINDERS May 2019 (section FOR THE ELDERS ONLY).

3. Baptism Questions: The two baptism questions that are reviewed with candidates at the time of their concluding discussion with the elders and that are included at the end of each baptism talk outline have been changed as follows:

(1) “Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ?”

(2) “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?”

The new questions will be used starting with the baptism talks at assemblies and conventions beginning the week of May 13, 2019. Elders should update the two questions on page 209 in their copies of Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will.

Old questions:  

Baptismal questions from the Watchtower 1985 Jun 1 p.30:

(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?

 

... accepted his way of salvation  is also omitted

Well it seems how organization is not spirit-directed any more :))

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What do you think about this?  Whether the absence of spoken words (in the name of ....) is the reason why such baptism would be considered invalid? Or, that is not matter?  

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication.

Yes, i recall period of time when baptizer said those words, .. in the name of.... , to candidate in the moments, seconds before immersing him/her. 

[Evacuated]

 

4 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

baptizer said those words

Up to the individual. Neither required nor paticularly appropriate. We can all speak in our hearts and be heard .

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

Thanks for the insight.  I never thought of it that way.

The Baptism is an outward symbol of a dedication ALREADY MADE IN IT'S TOTALITY.

Whatever you dedicated to Jehovah God is between you and God, alone ... and what the GB has done is try an "control the narrative", and add to that.

I wonder what would happen if after Baptism at an Assembly, where you stood up with many baptismal candidates that said "YES", and you did not affirm the questions asked you.  I doubt they examine the videos to make sure you did, or have someone watch to see if you did, taking notes.  Then, after perhaps several years of faithful life, casually mention that your immersion was as public as you needed, and that you never said "Yes" like all the others did.

What you had resolved in your heart to do was sufficient, and nothing needed to be added.

It's obvious that you were not there to soap up and bathe.

Or ... let's say you were on a camping trip beside a lake, and you turned to your Bible Teacher and said "What's to prevent me from being baptized ..." quoting the Ethiopian Eunuch, and you both went down to the lake, and your teacher baptized you.

As far as I know, it only takes ONE other person present to be a public expression of your dedication, and it would in actual fact be quite valid.

That brings up the next consideration .....

When you got back to your home congregations, relating the events of the camping trip, how much crap would you have to put up with from the Elders ... or would it be none at all?

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I remember my ex-wife telling me about a Brother from the United States who was baptized in Peru, and later married a local Sister. A fine Brother in every way, so I hear, but he had forgotten that years before,, in the United States, he was still married.

He was believed by the Peruvian Elders, and the only solution they could find was to "Unbaptize" him by declaring his baptism null and void.  It was either that, or disfellowship him.

Having worked on a Bethel construction project down there, I found that story entirely believable, as they are a much simpler people in many respects.

I am inclined to believe that, all things considered,  what the Elders did was the correct thing to do ... under very odd circumstances.

Of course, I am only guessing.

... and, I am many thousands of miles away, and now about a quarter-century away, and I don't give a hoot, and try not to pollute.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

He was believed by the Peruvian Elders, and the only solution they could find was to "Unbaptize" him by declaring his baptism null and void.  It was either that, or disfellowship him.

 

6 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 

If you don't mind for connecting this two comments.

"Baptism" of this man is done because he want to "dedicate" (guess) himself to God - spiritually , not to WT Society. 

But - factually, he made sort of "Contract, in corporative language, with WT Society through WT Representative who immersed him in water. 

Well, if God accepted his dedication, despite fact he has two wife's (perhaps he was repentant all the time, but he chooses second wife) than his baptism, spiritually is valid. But second (hidden) part of his "dedication" - to WT Society -  is in question, and that sort of "dedication" has been possible to delete in Administrative manner, because he also was hiding some important information.      

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I took the story at face value, based on my experience.

What REALLY might have happened is too variable for me to consider without a MUCH larger head.

[Shiwiii]

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Currently, there is NO ONE on Earth who can fire the Governing Body .... and they know it!

No matter what they do .... the money just keeps rolling in.

I disagree. 

 

All of you who are a part of this org has that power.

 

You just have to do it, fire them, stop giving them your mind and money.

Then Poof, they no longer have that power over you.